STATE  OF  NEW  YORK 


kmk 


REPORT 

BY 

LAURENCE  M.  D.  McGUIRE 

OF  THE 

Factory  Investigating  Commission 


TRANSMITTED  TO  THE  LEGISLATURE  MARCH  4,  1915 


ALBANY 

J.  B.  LYON  COMPANY,  PRINTERS 
19  15 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 

University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign  Alternates 


https://archive.org/details/reportbylaurenceOOmcgu 


M  I  73-c 

State  of  New  York 


No.  ,50 


IN  SENATE 

March  4,  1915 


Report  by  Laurence  M.  D.  McGuire  of  the  New  York 
State  Factory  Investigating  Commission 


To  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  New  York: 

A  majority  of  the  New  York  State  Factory  Investigating  Com¬ 
mission  presented  to  yonr  honorable  body  on  February  15,  1915, 
a  report  of  their  work  for  your  consideration  together  with  a  bill 
“  recodifying  the  labor  law.” 

As  a  member  of  the  Commission  I  carefully  studied  the  reports 
submitted  and  while  in  the  main  I  agree  that  the  report  fairly 
states  the  work  done  by  the  Commission  I  can  not  concur  in  all 
the  conclusions  and  I  more  particularly  dissent  to  the  recommenda¬ 
tions  as  to  recodifying  the  labor  law  and  as  to  the  consolidation 
of  various  inspection  departments  in  the  city  of  New  York. 

It  may  he  that  my  close  connection  with  business  enables  me 
to  see  matters  affecting  labor  and  capital  in  a  different  light  than 
that  in  which  my  associates  view  them.  I  feel,  personally,  that 
sufficient  consideration  has  not  been  given  the  serious  disturbance 
in  all  branches  of  legitimate  business  which  has  resulted  through 
excessive  governmental  interference  and  regulation.  It  has  also 
seemed  to  me  that,  apparently  my  colleagues  believed  that  the  end 
justified  the  means.  The  safety,  convenience  and  comfort  of  labor, 
desirable  it  is  true,  appeared  to  them  to  be  absolutely  essential 
regardless  of  whether  the  methods  employed  to  obtain  such  safety, 


4 


[Senate 


convenience  and  comfort  would  seriously  effect  business  and  possi¬ 
bly  make  it  unproductive,  discourage  investment,  and  lead  to  the 
ultimate  unemployment  of  labor. 

There  are  many  who  believe  that  opportunity  can  no  longer  be 
grasped  by  the  laboring  man  and  that  his  condition  is  a  serious 
one.  These  people  believe  that  the  great  combinations  of  capital 
have  made  it  impossible  for  the  laboring  man  to  rise  from  the 
ranks  and  become  an  employer  and  to  them  there  is,  apparently, 
an  impassable  gulf  between  the  employer  and  the  laborer.  My 
view  point  and  belief  are  different.  I  believe  that  labor  has  as 
many  opportunities  to  rise  today  as  it  ever  had  and  that  the 
future  of  this  country  holds  just  as  much  promise  for  the  individ¬ 
ual  as  it  ever  did. 

It  has  seemed  to  me  that  the  very  objects  for  which  the  Com¬ 
mission  is  striving  will  be  defeated  by  the  laws  they  seek  to  enact. 
If  unnecessary  and  burdensome  regulations  are  placed  upon  the 
employer  they  will  ultimately  affect  injuriously  the  laborer. 

It  is,  therefore,  my  opinion  that  while  the  rights  of  labor  should 
be  safeguarded  to  the  utmost  it  is  important  that  nothing  should 
be  done  to  discourage  the  employer  or  to  impair  seriously  his  in¬ 
vestment,  for  this  would  cause  ultimate  unemployment  and  con¬ 
sequent  hardship  and  distress. 

As  an  instance  the  enactment  of  rigid  and  drastic  regulation  as 
the  result  of  what  is  known  as  the  Asch  fire  in  Hew  York  city, 
had  the  affect  of  seriously  impeding  building  operations  in  that 
community.  While  it  cannot  be  positively  shown  that  the  meas¬ 
ures  enacted  as  a  result  of  the  agitation  which  followed  this  fire, 
excellent  though  these  measures  may  be,  have  resulted  in  saving  a 
single  life,  their  rigid  enforcement  has  seriously  discouraged 
building  operations  in  the  city. 

Last  year’s  record  and  that  of  the  year  previous  were  lower 
than  the  record  of  the  year  of  the  Asch  fire.  It  is  true  that  part 
of  this  loss  can  be  ascribed  to  the  general  business  depression, 
yet,  the  percentage  of  loss  in  Greater  Hew  York  was,  I  believe, 
larger  than  in  other  cities  throughout  the  country  where  the  same 
business  depression  existed,  but  where  the  investor  and  builder 
were  not  harrassed  and  interferred  with  by  unnecessary  regula¬ 
tions.  In  consequence  of  this  slack  in  building  operations  thou¬ 
sands  of  workmen  are  without  employment  and  it  would  be  difficult 
to  accurately  estimate  the  privation  and  hardship  which  has  re¬ 
sulted  therefrom. 


Yo.  50] 


5 


That  this  serious  state  of  affairs  does  not  deter  the  professional 
agitator  for  more  regulation  is  shown  by  the  following  letter  re¬ 
cently  sent  broadcast  throughout  the  State : 

COMMITTEE  ON  SAFETY  OF  THE  CITY  OF 
YEW  YORK 

A  Voluntary  Organization  of  Citizens 

30  East  Forty-second  Street  Telephone  Murray 

Hill  4302 
January  14,  1915 

My  dear . —  A  cry  of  fire  fills  the  room.  Frantic 

with  fear,  fighting  in  the  midst  of  a  panic-ridden  mob  for 
air,  for  breath,  for  escape  —  flames  leaping  higher,  the  exits 
blocked,  the  screaming  crowd  grows  helpless. 

A  frail  girl,  with  clothing  torn,  eyes  staring,  choking, 
coughing,  gasping,  blinded  by  smoke,  rushing  wildly  back 
and  forth,  tries  to  decide  in  the  half  second  that  remains 
whether  to  leap  from  the  window  to  almost  certain  death  on 
the  sidewalk  below,  or  with  one  more  breath  of  the  scorching 
air,  fall  suffocated  to  the  floor  with  the  flames  ready  to  do 
their  fatal  work  on  the  young  body. 

This  is  what  it  means  to  be  caught  in  a  factory  fire. 

The  Triangle  fire  in  which  147  perished  and  twice  as  many 
were  injured;  the  Yewark  fire  which  destroyed  28  young 
girls  and  injured  as  many  more;  the  Binghamton  fire  where 
38  workers  lost  their  lives  and  twice  as  many  were  injured 
by  jumping,  bear  witness  to  the  reality  of  this  kind  of 
disaster. 

Two  hundred  and  sixty  thousand  working  girls  and  420,000 
working  men  face  this  danger  every  day,  when  they  go  to 
their  work  in  the  factories  in  Yew  York  city. 

The  Committee  on  Safety  educates  the  public,  the  em¬ 
ployers  and  the  workers,  in  regard  to  these  dangers  and 
their  prevention,  promotes  legislation  to  make  impossible 
such  disasters,  and  secures  the  proper  and  adequate  enforce¬ 
ment  of  the  laws. 

A  contribution  of  ten  dollars  sent  immediately  will  help  to 
assure  an  effective  legislative  campaign  this  winter  to  protect 
the  workers  against  the  fire  hazard. 

Sincererly  yours, 

FRA YCIS  PERKIYS, 

Executive  Secretary 


(Signed) 


6 


[Senate 


The  signer  and  presumably  the  author  of  this  letter  was  re¬ 
tained  by  the  Commission  as  an  investigator  of  mercantile  estab¬ 
lishments.  The  harm  done  by  this  constant  agitation  cannot  be 
overestimated. 

In  reference  to  that  portion  of  the  report  which  refers  to  the 
consolidation  of  building  inspection  in  New  York  city  I  wish  to 
state  that  there  have  been  many  meetings  of  real  estate  and  civic 
organizations  held  to  discuss  the  advisability  of  such  a  consolida¬ 
tion  and  that  it  was  practically  the  opinion  of  all,  with  but  one  or 
two  exceptions,  that  such  consolidation  should  be  along  borough 
lines. 

The  Building  Bureaus  of  the  several  boroughs  are  managed  by 
capable  heads  with  practical  experience  and  their  employees,  under 
the  charter  must  have  had  practical  experience.  It  has,  there¬ 
fore,  seemed  to  the  associations  previously  referred  to  and  real 
estate  men  and  builders  generally,  that  it  would  be  better  to  trans¬ 
fer  these  jurisdictions  and  inspections  to  the  bureaus  already  fully 
equipped  to  handle  them  rather  than  to  create  a  new  city  bureau 
or  to  allow  the  Board  of  Estimate  to  rearrange  city  commissions. 

In  fact,  I  cannot  understand  why  the  Commission,  after  hear¬ 
ing  the  testimony,  reported  in  favor  of  the  plan  submitted  by  the 
mayor’s  committee.  This  latter  plan  is  so  indefinite  and  really 
gives  such  little  relief  to  a  city  in  dire  necessity  that  it  should 
not  be  considered. 

The  bill  known  as  the  Lockwood  bill  should  be  adopted,  for  this 
alone  provides  the  relief  imperatively  demanded  by  building  and 
real  estate  interests. 

My  objections  to  the  report  of  my  colleagues  summarized  are 
as  follows : 

1.  That  it  is  not  a  recodification  but  is  a  revision  of  the  labor 
law. 

2.  That  the  proposed  additions  to  the  law  are  drastic  and  in 
many  instances  unnecessary  and  if  enacted  business  and  real 
property  interests  will  be  seriously  effected. 

3.  That  the  proposed  bill  does  not  give  sufficient  consideration 
to  the  request  and  suggestions  of  witnesses  who  testified  before  the 
Commission  in  relation  to  the  requirements  for  factories  and  mer¬ 
cantile  establishments. 

4.  That  the  enlarging  of  the  definition  of  the  term  “  factory  ” 
so  that  it  will  include  almost  every  building  in  the  State  except 
those  used  exclusively  for  dwelling  purposes  is  contrary  to  the 
purpose  for  which  the  law  was  intended. 


No.  50] 


7 


5.  The  attempt  to  relieve  conditions  in  reference  to  structural 
changes  in  buildings,  by  stating  that  provisions  of  the  law  will 
not  apply  where  only  four  persons  are  employed  in  manufactur¬ 
ing,  is  frustrated  by  the  clause  which  gives  to  the  Industrial  Board 
power  to  order  any  changes  which  it  may  require,  regardless  of 
the  number  of  people  employed. 

This  change  would  make  it  impossible  for  an  owner  to  know 
from  one  day  to  another  what  the  Industrial  Board  may  demand. 

6.  That  the  bill  allows  the  construction  and  alteration  pro¬ 
visions  of  the  law  to  be  varied  by  a  board,  whose  members  are 
admittedly  not  experts  in  building  construction. 

7.  That  the  new  provision  of  the  bill  to  make  “  the  law  flexible 
in  its  application  ”  gives  the  same  board  the  right  to  specify 
building  material  and  forms  of  construction  of  buildings.  It  is 
unwise  to  vest  this  enormous  responsibility  in  persons  who  are 
not  experts. 

In  New  York  city  .this  work  is  done  by  building  experts  in  the 
employ  of  the  city  and  their  work  is  reviewable  by  a  Board  of 
Examiners,  composed  of  experts  on  building  construction. 

The  transfer  of  this  jurisdiction  I  believe  would' be  a  serious 
mistake. 

8.  That  the  provision  which  makes  “  an  agent  in  charge  of 
property  ”  criminally  liable  for  failing  to  do  something  which  he 
may  be  unauthorized  to  do  is  unfair,  and  I  believe  unconstitu¬ 
tional. 

9.  That  the  provision  requiring  the  employment  of  not  less  than 
125  inspectors  regardless  of  the  work  to  be  done  is  not  in  accord 
with  business  principals  of  economy. 

10.  That  the  bill  should  exempt  cities  of  the  first  class,  which 
maintain  building  departments  or  bureaus,  from  its  provisions 
in  all  matters  which  relate  to  the  construction  or  alteration  of 
buildings.  This  exemption  might  be  extended  to  other  cities 
maintaining  efficient  building  bureaus  or  departments.  In  Yew 
York  city  there  are  building  bureaus  in  each  borough,  the  heads 
of  which  are  required  to  be  builders  or  architects  of  at  least  ten 
years’  experience  and  the  employees  in  these  bureaus  are  experts 
in  building  construction.  The  efficiency  of  the  bureaus  and  the 
capability  of  the  employees  are  conceded  facts. 

The  requirements  in  Yew  York  city  are  of  high  standard. 
Health  and  life  are  adequately  safeguarded.  It  would  seem  to  be 
unfair  to  take  away  from  Yew  York  city  and  other  cities  of  the 
first  class  the  jurisdiction  over  the  construction  of  its  own  build- 


8 


[Senate 


ings  and  place  it  in  the  State  Department  which  is  not  as  well 
equipped  to  pass  upon  work  involving  vast  sums  of  money  yearly. 

While  the  hill  gives  the  labor  law  entire  jurisdiction  over  the 
construction  and  alteration  of  factory  buildings,  it  empowers  the 
labor  commissioner  to  demand  that  the  local  building  bureaus 
examine  all  plans  filed  in  the  labor  department,  and  inspect  and 
report  to  it  on  all  factory  buildings  constructed  as  to  the  require¬ 
ments  of  all  laws  and  ordinances,  including  the  labor  law. 

This  would  impose  upon  the  local  building  bureaus  the  burden 
of  doing  all  the  work  and  assuming  responsibility,  but  still  leave 
the  control  within  the  labor  department. 

It  would  seem  unnecessary  to  maintain  a  building  bureau  within 
a  labor  department  in  cities  of  the  first  class  to  duplicate  work 
now  being  done  by  the  local  bureaus. 

A  large  saving  to  both  the  State  and  cities  could  be  effected 
by  giving  to  the  local  building  bureaus  jurisdiction  over  building 
construction.  It  would  not  only  make  a  saving  but  would  tend  to 
stop  the  much  complained  of  over  inspection  and  conflict. 

The  advantages  which  would  accrue  to  the  citizens  and  to  the 
State  at  large  if  home  rule  prevailed  as  to  building  construction 
seems  to  me  to  be  too  apparent  to  require  further  discussion.  That 
the  present  law  has  done  great  injury  and  damage  to  property 
rights,  which  the  proposed  new  bill  will  not  remedy  is  a  fact  gen¬ 
erally  admitted  by  all  who  have  reason  or  occasion  to  follow  the 
operation  of  the  law  since  its  enactment. 

My  opinion  is  that  the  recodification  bill  as  presented  will  prove 
impracticable,  unnecessarily  increase  the  financial  burdens  of  the 
State,  will  harass  the  employer  and  employee  and  cause  the  owners 
of  real  estate  to  spend  unnecessarily  vast  sums  of  money. 

In  my  opinion  the  Commission  in  its  recommendations  and,  in 
fact,  in  its  entire  work  has,  to  some  extent  at  least,  proceeded 
upon  a  wrong  theory.  They  have  allowed  themselves  to  believe 
that  laborers  are  a  distinct  class  and  must  be  legislated  for,  pro¬ 
tected  and  regulated,  and  that  labor  as  a  class  cannot  prosper  and 
flourish  unless  the  strong  arm  of  the  State  is  stretched  out  to  care 
for  it  and  protect  it. 

To  my  mind  this  is  all  wrong.  We  live  in  a  representative 
democracy  and  all  are  laborers.  The  employer  of  today  is  the 
laborer  of  yesterday.  Those  who  are  drones  are  so  few  as  not  to 
be  reckoned  with  and  the  sole  duty  of  the  State  is  to  safeguard  the 
individual  so  that  he  can  pursue  his  daily  legitimate  avocation 
without  let  or  hindrance. 


No.  50] 


9 


I  believe  that  this  is  the  sole  function  of  government  and  when 
this  is  done  and  the  individual  member  of  the  State  is  free  to 
pursue  his  daily  work  and  is  safeguarded  against  those  who  would 
take  from  him  his  rights  it  has  done  all  that  it  ought  to  do  and 
that  the  thousands  of  statutes  passed  upon  the  theory  that  there 
must  be  governmental  regulation  and  control  with  the  community 
divided  into  classes  and  each  class  given  protection  against  the 
other  is  all  wrong  and  in  the  end  will  result  in  great  injury. 

I  believe  that  the  restrictive  and  regulative  legislation  that 
has  been  enacted  at  Washington  and  in  all  the  states  has  been  less 
in  response  to  popular  demand  than  as  a  result  of  self-seeking  agi¬ 
tators  who  have  sought  by  stirring  up  strife  between  the  employer 
and  employed  to  further  their  own  ends. 

The  experience  of  the  past  proves  conclusively  that  the  best 
government  is  the  least  possible  government,  that  the  unfettered 
initiative  of  the  individual  is  the  force  that  makes  a  country  great 
and  that  this  initiative  should  never  be  bound  except  where  it 
becomes  a  menace  to  the  liberty  and  initiative  of  others. 

Those  laws  that  are  said  to  be  progressive  are  really  reactionary 
and  belong  rather  to  the  days  of  socalled  beneficient  despotism 
than  to  the  era  of  representative  government. 

In  conclusion  I  believe  that  this  matter  can  be  safely  left  to 
the  wisdom  of  the  Legislature  and  that  as  a  result  of  your  de¬ 
liberations  wise  and  beneficient  laws  will  be  enacted. 

I  append  herewith  for  the  information  of  the  legislature,  a 
pamphlet  urging  simplicity  in  building  inspection  and  beg  to 
direct  your  attention  to  the  representative  organizations  which 
plead  with  you  for  relief,  to  which  I  believe  they  are  fully  entitled. 

LAURENCE  M.  D.  McGUIRE. 


FOR  SIMPLICITY  IN  BUILDING  INSPECTION 


A  Few  of  the  Reasons  Why  Senator  Lockwood’s  Bill,  Int.  No. 
424,  and  Assemblyman  Ellenbogen’s  Bill,  Int.  No.  612,  in 
Relation  to  the  Construction,  Alteration  and  Structural 
Changes  in  Buildings  in  New  York  City 


SHOULD  BECOME  A  LAW 


Robert  E.  Simon,  Chairman  Richard  0.  Chittick,  Secretary 

George  W.  Olvany,  Counsel 


CONFERENCE  COMMITTEE 

OF  REAL  ESTATE  AND  ALLIED  ORGANIZATIONS 

IN  THE  MATTER  OF 

CONSOLIDATING  VARIOUS  DEPARTMENTS 


NOW  HAVING  JURISDICTION  OVER 

BUILDINGS  IN  NEW  YORK  CITY 
115  BROADWAY,  ROOM  215 
Telephone  Rector  5413 

*  J 

1 

EXECUTIVE  COMMITTEE 


For  Manhattan 

Stewart  Browne, 

United  Real  Estate  Owners’  Asso¬ 
ciation 

Alfred  R.  Kirkus, 

Merchants’  Association 

Laurence  M.  D.  McGuire, 

Real  Estate  Board  of  New  York 

Cyrus  C.  Miller, 

Advisory  Council  of  Real  Estate 
Interests. 

Allan  Robinson, 

Allied  Real  Estate  Interests 

Robert  E.  Simon, 

Real  Estate  Board  of  New  York 

George  H.  Stege, 

West  Side  Taxpayers’  Association 


For  Brooklyn 
W.  B.  Greenman, 

Brooklyn  Builders’  Association 
Charles  Partridge, 

Brooklyn  Board  of  Real  Estate 
Brokers 

For  the  Bronx 

P.  J.  Reville, 

Builders’  Protective  Association 
Clarence  S.  Shumway, 

North  Side  Board  of  Trade 

For  Queens 
Clinton  T.  Roe, 

Chamber  of  Commerce,  Borough  of 
Queens 

John  J.  PIalleran, 

Flushing  Business  Men’s  Associa¬ 
tion 


For  Richmond 

Cornelius  G.  Kolff, 

Staten  Island  Chamber  of  Com¬ 
merce 

For  Neiv  York  State 
Mortimer  J.  Fox, 

Real  Estate  Association,  State  of 
New  York 


[Senate  No.  50] 


13 


THE  LOCKWOOD-ELLENBOGEN  BILL 

Is  Endorsed  by  the  Conference  Committee  of  Real  Estate  and 
Allied  Organizations  in  the  Matter  of  Consolidating  Various 
Departments  Now  Having  Jurisdiction  Over  the 
Buildings  in  New  York  City,  which  Includes 
the  Following  Organizations: 

For  Manhattan 

Building  Managers’  Association. 

Fifth  Avenue  Association. 

Beal  Estate  Board  of  New  York. 

Harlem  Property  Owners’  Association. 

Merchants’  Association. 

Twenty-third  Street  Improvement  Association. 

United  Beal  Estate  Owners’  Association. 

Washington  Heights  Taxpayers’  Association. 

Advisory  Council  of  Beal  Estate  Interests. 

Central  Mercantile  Association. 

West  Side  Taxpayers’  Association. 

Broadway  Association. 

Forty-Second  Street  Association. 

Harlem  Board  of  Commerce. 

18th  and  20th  Wards  Taxpayers’  Association. 

Beal  Estate  Owners  of  the  12th  and  19th  Wards. 

Building  Trades  Employers’  Association. 

10th,  11th  and  17th  Wards  Association  of  New  York. 

Joint  Committee  on  City  Departments. 

Greater  New  York  Taxpayers’  Association. 

New  York  Society  of  Architects. 

For  the  Bronx 
North  Side  Board  of  Trade. 

American  Beal  Estate  Company. 

Bedford  Park  Taxpayers’  Association. 

Builders’  Protective  Association. 

Taxpayers’  Alliance  of  the  Bronx. 

Woodstock  Taxpayers’  Association. 

Bronx  Board  of  Trade.  ! 

Italian  American  Property  Owners’  Association. 

South  Bronx  Property  Owners’  Association. 


14 


[Senate 


For  Brooklyn 

Brooklyn  Board  of  Beal  Estate  Brokers. 

Builders7  Association  of  Brooklyn. 

Citizens7  Association  of  Bay  Bidge  and  Fort  Hamilton. 
Bidgewood  Board  of  Trade. 

Borough  Park  Board  of  Trade. 

Fulton  Street  Board  of  Trade. 

Bedford  Heights  Board  of  Trade. 

Brooklyn  Chapter  American  Institute  of  Architects. 

City  Club  of  Brooklyn. 

South  Midwood  Besidents7  Association. 

West  End  Board  of  Trade. 

Central  Borough  Board  of  Public  Improvements. 

Allied  Board  of  Trade  and  Taxpayers7  Association  of  Brooklyn. 
South  Side  Board  of  Trade. 

Citizens7  Association  of  New  Utrecht. 

West  Brooklyn  Board  of  Trade. 

Brokers7  and  Builders7  Exchange  of  New  Utrecht. 

Martense  Business  Men’s  Association. 

Borough  Park  West  Civic  Association.  * 

Lelferts  Park  Improvement  Association. 

Gravesend  Board  of  Trade. 

Brooklyn  Civic  Committee. 

28th  Ward  Taxpayers7  Protective  Association. 

For  Queens 

Chambers  of  Commerce. 

Flushing  Business  Men’s  Association. 

Astoria  Taxpayers’  Association. 

Morris  Park  Citizens’  Association. 

Hillside  Beal  Estate  Association. 

United  Civic  Association. 

Far  Bockawav  Taxpayers’  Association. 

Brenton  Construction  Civic  Association. 

Beal  Estate  Exchange  of  Long  Island. 

For  Richmond 
Staten  Island  Civic  League. 

Taxpayers’  Alliance. 

Staten  Island  Chamber  of  Commerce. 

For  Neie  York  State 

Beal  Estate  Association,  State  of  New  York. 


No.  50] 


15 


THE  VALUES  OF  REAL  PROPERTY  IN  NEW  YORK 
CITY  HAVE  BEEN  SERIOUSLY  DEPRECIATED  BY 
NEEDLESS  OVER-INSPECTION  AND  CONFLICT 
OF  LAWS 

Over  inspection  and  needless  inspection  of  real  property  have 
seriously  and  adversely  affected  the  income  of  the  city  of  New 
York,  and  have  caused  a  depreciation  of  the  value  of  loft  and 
factory  buildings  south  of  Twenty-third  street,  borough  of  Man¬ 
hattan,  of  more  than  fifty  per  cent  in  the  last  three  years. 

It  is  absolutely  impossible  to  sell  an  old  factory  or  loft  building, 
because  the  investor  will  not  speculate  as  to  what  the  whims  of  the 
officials  of  the  different  departments  will  bring  forth  in  the  way 
of  violations  and  orders. 

The  need  of  a  reform  from  the  present  method  of  inspection  is 
conceded  by  everyone  who  is  in  touch  with  the  situation,  and  a 
quick  remedy  would  be  a  salvation  to  the  real  estate  owner.  It 
would  not  only  relieve  the  financial  condition  of  the  city,  but 
would  revive  real  estate  and  business  conditions,  and  thereby  neces¬ 
sarily  help  to  alleviate  the  labor  situation. 

A  few  of  the  instances  of  over  inspection,  needless  inspection 
and  conflict  of  laws  in  reference  to  buildings  in  New  York  city: 

1.  Factory  buildings  are  inspected  by  seven  different  depart¬ 
ments,  viz. :  Fire,  Health,  Police,  Tenement  House,  Building, 
Labor  and  Water  Supply,  Gas  and  Electricity. 

2.  Tenement  houses  are  inspected  by  six  different  departments, 
viz. :  Police,  Tenement  House,  Fire,  Building,  Health  and  Water 
Supply,  Gas  and  Electricity. 

3.  Tenement  houses  with  stores,  or  factories  are  inspected  by 
seven  different  departments,  viz.:  Police,  Tenement  House,  Eire, 
Health,  Labor,  Building  and  Water  Supply,  Gas  and  Electricity. 

4.  Hotels  and  office  buildings  are  inspected  by  five  different 
departments,  viz. :  Police,  Fire,  Labor,  Building  and  Water  Sup¬ 
ply,  Gas  and  Electricity. 

5.  Theatres  or  motion  picture  houses  are  inspected  by  six  dif¬ 
ferent  departments,  viz.:  Police,  Eire,  Building,  Water  Supply, 
Gas  and  Electricity  and  Licenses. 

6.  Churches  and  semi-public  buildings  are  inspected  by  five 
different  departments,  viz. :  Police,  Eire,  Building,  Water  Supply, 
Gas  and  Electricity  and  Licenses. 

7.  Garages  are  inspected  by  four  different  departments,  viz. : 
Police,  Fire,  Building  and  Water  Supply,  Gas  and  Electricity. 


16 


[Senate 


8.  Private  dwellings  are  inspected  by  two  different  departments, 
viz. :  Building  and  Water  Supply,  Gas  and  Electricity. 

The  bureaus  of  buildings  in  each  borough  pass  upon  and  ap¬ 
prove  or  disapprove  of  all  plans  for  the  construction  and  alteration 
of  every  building  in  New  York  city,  irrespective  of  its  character 
or  use,  and  inspect  every  building  during  its  construction  and 
alteration.  In  view  of  this  fact,  why  should  it  be  necessary  for 
any  of  the  other  seven  departments  to  inspect  the  same  buildings 
over  again.  Any  inspection  made  by  departments  other  than  the 
building  department  in  reference  to  construction  and  alteration 
of  buildings  is  certainly  needless  and  over-inspection. 

A  great  deal  of  needless  inspection  is  caused  by  the  piecemeal 
issuance  of  orders.  If  competent  building  inspectors  were  em¬ 
ployed,  they  could,  on  one  inspection,  ascertain  exactly  in  what 
particulars  a  building  did  not  conform  with  the  laws  and  ordi¬ 
nances,  and  one  order  could  then  be  issued  covering  every  de¬ 
ficiency  in  such  building. 

If  one  bureau  had  entire  jurisdiction  over  building  construction 
and  alteration,  an  owner  could  feel  reasonably  safe  if  he  complied 
with  its  orders,  that  additional  orders  involving  the  same  building 
would  not  be  issued,  and  he  would  be  relieved  from  the  constant 
worry  of  the  possibility  of  orders  emanating  from  the  other  seven 
departments. 

Is  it  unreasonable  to  ask  that  the  Building  Laws  be  made 
uniform  and  that  one  department  enforce  such  laws?  Needless 
and  over-inspection  would  then  be  impossible  as  the  records  of 
the  office  would  show  the  exact  conditions  of  each  building  in  New 
York  city  at  all  times,  and  orders  would  not  be  issued  except 
upon  the  facts  as  shown  on  the  records. 

The  following  are  a  few  of  the  difficulties  which  have  been 
experienced  by  real  estate  owners: 

'(1)  An  order  was  received  from  the  State  Department  of 
Labor,  stating  that  one  of  the  stores  in  a  tenement  house  was 
being  used  for  manufacturing  purposes,  and  therefore  all  doors 
should  be  altered  and  arranged  to  swing  outwardly,  and  various 
other  changes  made.  On  examination,  it  was  found  that  the 
tenant  and  his  wife  were  making  jam  in  the  rear  of  the  store 
which  was  on  the  ground  level.  The  department  was  notified 
that  the  tenant  would  vacate  on  the  first  of  the  month,  and  a  re¬ 
quest  was  made  for  a  stay  of  the  order.  The  extension  of  time 
was  refused  on  the  ground  that  the  risk  was  extra-hazardous. 


No.  50] 


17 


*  p 

£  Ul 


?  t 


<  g 

U.  M 

°  iO  K 

m 

\j\3  < 
m 
a, 
vo 
z 


b 

£S> 

*C 

f 

Uh- 

fniL 

* 

O 

| 

£ 

It  is  this  Tangle  of  Multiplicity  of  Inspection  the  Lockwood-Ellenbogen  Bill  is  Designed  to  Unravel, 


18 


[Senate 


(2)  A  letter  from  an  architect: 

“  Yonrs  of  the  17th  inst.,  received,  and  in  reply  would  say 
that  I  have  never  had  any  serious  delay  in  seeing  Mr.  Blank 
(Building  Bureau  Official)  but  I  have  been  troubled  very  greatly 
in  matters  of  approvals.  These  delays  seemed  to  be  mostly  caused 
by  lack  of  accord  between  the  Bureau  of  Buildings  and  the  Labor 
Department. 

“  I  find  that  the  Bureau  of  Buildings  do  not  send  their  ap¬ 
proval  for  construction  to  the  Department  of  Labor,  and  the 
applicant  is  supposed  to  get  the  approval  from  the  Bureau  of 
Buildings  and  submit  it  to  the  Department  of  Labor,  which  I 
think  is  unwarranted,  and  also  the  ideas  of  the  two  departments 
do  not  coincide. 

“  The  decisions  of  the  Department  of  Labor  and  their  procedure 
in  regard  to  application  for  approval  of  work  are  unbusinesslike; 
and  I  have  found  in  one  case  unreliable/’ 

(3)  An  owner  of  a  tenement  house,  which  in  every  particular 

complied  with  the  Tenement  House  Law,  received  an  order  from 
the  Department  of  Labor,  which  read  as  follows :  “  You  are  hereby 
directed  to  comply  with  the  following  requirements  of  law 
*  *  *  in  the  building  located  at  *  *  *  now  used  for 

store  purposes,  and  of  which  you  are  the  owner. 

“  Provide  suitable  water  closet,  and  properly  screen,  light  and 
ventilate.” 

The  water  closet  for  this  store  is  located  in  the  cellar,  and  was 
approved  by  the  Tenement  House  Department. 

However,  in  order  to  comply  with  the  Labor  Department  order 
it  was  necessary  to  first  file  plans  with  the  Tenement  House  De¬ 
partment  and  then  with  the  Bureau  of  Buildings,  and  in  order 
to  be  sure  that  they  would  be  satisfactory  to  the  Labor  Depart¬ 
ment,  to  that  department. 

When  the  work  was  done,  it  was  inspected  by  inspectors  from 
the  Tenement  House  Department  as  to  construction,  light,  ventila¬ 
tion,  sanitary  conditions  and  plumbing;  by  inspectors  from  the 
Building  Department  as  to  construction,  sanitary  conditions  and 
plumbing,  and  by  inspectors  of  the  Labor  Department  as  to  con¬ 
struction,  light,  ventilation,  sanitary  conditions  and  privacy. 

(4)  An  owner  desired  to  make  an  alteration  in  a  tenement 
house,  to  provide  for  a  cleaning  and  dyeing  establishment,  and 
before  he  could  start  the  alteration  he  was  compelled  to  file  plans 


No.  50] 


19 


and  secure  the  approval  of  the  following  departments,  viz. :  Fire, 
Labor,  Tenement  House  and  Bureau  of  Buildings. 

(5)  An  owner  desired  to  construct  a  loft  building,  40  by  90 
with  stairways  on  the  extreme  north  and  south  sides  of  the  build¬ 
ing,  and  submitted  his  plans  to  the  Building  Bureau  which  duly 
approved  of  them,  as  being  in  accordance  with  the  City  Building 
Code.  The  owner  wishing  to  cover  the  possibility  of  the  building- 
being  used  as  a  factory,  submitted  the  same  plans  to  the  Labor 
Department  and  was  refused  an  approval  of  them  because  the 
exits  were  not  more  than  twenty-five  feet  from  each  other,  although 
they  were  situated  in  the  most  advantageous  parts  of  the  building 
from  a  safety  standpoint. 

It  can  readily  be  seen  that  this  decision  was  an  arbitrary  one,  in 
view  of  the  fact  that  the  labor  law  only  says  “  that  there  shall  be 
two  exits  remote  from  each  other.’7 

(6)  The  fire  department  issued  an  order  directing  that  an  out¬ 
side  stairway  be  erected  from  the  balcony  of  the  front  fire  escape 
on  the  first  story  to  the  ground.  The  owner  complied  with  the 
order  and  received  an  approval  from  the  fire  department.  Shortly 
thereafter  the  building  department  filed  a  violation  against  the 
building  because  the  stairway  was  not  ten  feet  clear  of  the  side¬ 
walk.  The  owner  then  appealed  to  the  fire  department,  and  was 
told  “  the  building  department  supersedes  the  fire  department  in 
all  matters  relative  to  the  encroachment  upon  highways:  Their 
decision  is  final  in  these  matters.” 

A  few  days  later  the  matter  was  laid  before  the  borough  pres¬ 
ident  and  was  by  him  referred  to  the  building  superintendent,  who 
wrote  to  the  owner,  requesting  a  personal  interview  and  suggested 
a  conference  with  the  fire  department  officials,  and  thereafter  the 
owner  received  a  letter  from  the  building  superintendent  which 
read  as  follows:  “I  (building  superintendent)  had  an  interview 
with  Mr.  Hammitt,  chief  of  the  bureau  of  fire  prevention,  in  con¬ 
nection  with  this  matter,  with  a  view  to  avoiding  similar  conflicts 
in  the  future.”  But  the  stairway  had  to  be  removed. 

(7)  The  department  of  health  issued  orders  for  the  changing 
of  a  plumbing  system  in  a  building  which  were  duly  complied 
with  and  approved.  Less  than  six  months  thereafter  the  labor  de¬ 
partment  issued  orders  against  the  same  building,  ordering  that 
an  entire  change  in  the  plumbing  system  be  made,  although  it  was 
in  good  sanitary  condition,  and  in  every  way  complied  with  health 
department  requirements. 


20 


[Senate 


(8)  Plans  for  a  theatre  were  filed  in  the  bureau  of  buildings 
and  were  obj  ected  to  by  the  superintendent  on  the  ground  that  the 
exits  and  courts  did  not  comply  with  section  109  of  the  building 
code.  An  appeal  was  taken  to  the  board  of  examiners  and  they 
approved  the  plans  as  to  the  exits  and  courts. 

The  bureau  of  fire  prevention  refused  to  accept  the  decision  of 
the  board  of  examiners,  and  disapproved  the  plans  as  to  exits  and 
courts. 

The  corporation  counsel  rendered  an  opinion  to  the  effect  that 
the  fire  commissioner  could,  in  his  discretion,  accept  the  final  de¬ 
cision  of  the  board  of  examiners,  but  was  not  bound  to  do  so.  The 
fire  commissioner  absolutely  refused  to  approve  the  exits  and 
courts,  and  the  theatre  remains  unbuilt. 

(9)  An  application  was  made  for  a  dance  hall,  and  the  super¬ 
intendent  of  buildings  disapproved  of  it  for  the  reason  that  a  viola¬ 
tion  was  pending  for  a  change  of  occupancy  from  a  dance  hall  to 
a  dancing  school,  contrary  to  the  approved  plans.  Hotwithstand^ 
ing  the  disapproval  of  the  application  by  the  superintendent,  the 
department  of  licenses  issued  a  license  for  the  dance  hall. 

(10)  An  application  was  made  for  a  dance  hall  license  in  a 
fire-proof  structure  built  in  June,  1913,  in  accordance  with  the 
provisions  of  the  building  code,  and  the  application  was  approved 
by  the  superintendent  of  buildings. 

The  fire  commissioner  refused  to  approve  the  application,  be¬ 
cause  an  automatic  skylight  was  not  provided,  as  required  by 
section  109  of  the  building  code  although  the  building  officials 
themselves  had  passed  on  the  plans  on  this  point. 

(10-a)  In  order  to  build  a  side-walk  elevator  it  is  necessary  to 
get  the  consent  of  the  building  department,  bureau  of  highways 
and  department  of  water  supply,  gas  and  electricity. 

(11)  A  man  purchased  an  eight-story  tenant  factory  building, 
and  in  order  to  avoid  a  direction  of  the  labor  department  to  install 
automatic  sprinklers,  he  made  his  leases  with  the  tenants  above 
the  seventh  story  so  that  not  more  than  two  hundred  people  could 
be  employed  above  the  seventh  floor. 

He  took  this  precaution  because  his  equity  above  the  mortgage 
was  very  small,  and  he  could  not  afford  to  install  a  sprinkler  system 
which  would  cost  between  four  and  five  thousand  dollars.  A  short 
time  after  he  had  purchased  the  building  and  made  his  leases,  he 
received  an  order  from  the  fire  department  to  install  sprinklers  in 
the  building,  and  upon  taking  this  matter  up  with  the  fire  de¬ 
partment,  was  informed  that  they  could  order  sprinklers  in  any 
building,  irrespective  of  the  provisions  of  the  labor  law. 


No.  50] 


21 


The  man  being  financially  unable  to  comply  with  the  order  will 
be  compelled  to  close  his  building  if  the  order  is  enforced. 

(12)  An  order  was  received  by  a  proprietor  of  a  small  fish 
store,  stating,  that  as  he  was  conducting  a  mercantile  establishment 
he  must  comply  with  the  labor  laws  and  provide  suitable  toilets, 
etc.,  in  the  store  for  his  employees.  The  “  employees  ”  consisted 
of  one  man,  a  brother  of  the  proprietor,  and  there  were  toilets  for 
his  use  on  the  second  floor. 

The  following  are  examples  as  to  what  is  necessary  to  have  a 
building  approved : 

Tenement  House: 

Plan  with  application  is  filed  in  the  tenement  house  de¬ 
partment,  examined  by  plan  examiner  and  when  approved  is 
forwarded  to  the  bureau  of  buildings.  Plan  is  then  examined 
in  the  bureau  of  buildings  and  if  in  accordance  with  the  re¬ 
quirements  of  the  building  code  is  approved.  The  construc¬ 
tion  of  the  tenement  house  is  supervised  by  the  inspector  of 
the  tenement  house  department  and  the  inspector  of  buildings. 
Before  the  issuance  of  the  certificate  of  completion  by  the 
tenement  house  department  the  approval  thereof  must  be 
granted  by  the  bureau  of  buildings  and  the  department  of 
water  supply,  gas  and  electricity. 

Theatre : 

1.  Location  must  first  be  approved  by  the  department  of 
licenses. 

2.  Plan  must  be  approved  by  the  fire  prevention  bureau 
and  certificate  of  completion  issued. 

3.  Plan  must  be  approved  by  the  bureau  of  buildings  and 
certificate  of  completion  issued. 

4.  Electrical  equipment  must  be  approved  by  the  depart¬ 
ment  of  water  supply,  gas  and  electricity. 

5.  Sanitation  and  ventilation  must  be  approved  by  the  de¬ 
partment  of  health. 

Upon  receipt  of  the  approvals  of  the  foregoing  depart¬ 
ments  and  bureaus  the  inspector  of  the  department  of  licenses 
makes  a  final  inspection  before  granting  the  license. 

Factory  or  Loft  Building : 

1.  Plan  must  be  filed  in  the  bureau  of  fire  prevention, 
which  has  jurisdiction  as  to  the  stand-pipes,  sprinkler  system, 

etc. 


22 


[Senate 


2.  Plan  must  be  filed  in  the  State  Department  of  Labor 
which  has  jurisdiction  over  fireproof  construction,  exits,  etc. 

3.  Plan  must  be  filed  in  the  bureau  of  buildings  which  has 
jurisdiction  over  the  general  construction  of  the  building. 

In  connection  with  the  above,  duplicate  and  therefore  un¬ 
necessary  records  must  be  kept  in  the  various  departments 
concerning  the  same  premises. 

(13)  What  department  has  jurisdiction  over  a  building  which 
is  used  for  both  tenant  and  factory  purposes  ? 

The  tenement  house  and  fire  departments  allow  ladders  to  be 
used  on  fire  escapes  from  the  first  balcony  to  the  ground  while  the 
labor  department  demands  stairways. 

The  labor  department  requires  wire  glass  to  be  used  on  windows 
on  the  course  of  the  fire  escapes,  while  the  tenement  house  depart¬ 
ment  does  not. 

The  fire  department  orders  that  doors  be  made  to  open  out¬ 
wardly,  where  practicable,  whereas  the  labor  department  arbi¬ 
trarily  orders  all  doors  to  be  opened  outwardly,  irrespective  of 
conditions. 

The  sanitary  provisions  of  the  labor  department,  health,  tene¬ 
ment  house  and  building  departments  are  in  serious  conflict. 

(14)  The  labor  department  requires  that  all  windows  in  certain 
new  factories  must  be  wire  glass,  including  the  store.  The  building 
code  requires  no  such  drastic  requirement  and  allows  plain  glass 
to  be  used. 

(15)  The  building  superintendent  can  modify  the  law  and  ordi¬ 
nances  if  the  spirit  of  the  lav/  is  adhered  to. 

The  labor  commissioner  can  only  say  11  the  law  must  be  carried 
out,”  irrespective  of  the  merits  of  the  case. 

The  building  requirements  as  prescribed  in  the  building  code 
and  labor  laws  are  vastly  different. 

(16)  If  the  definition  of  a  factory,  as  proposed  in  the  revised 
recodification  of  the  labor  law  is  approved  by  the  legislature,  every 
building  in  Hew  York  city  whether  it  is  a  private  house,  office 
building,  tenement  house  or  factory,  will  be  under  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  labor  department. 

The  labor  commissioner  may  declare  a  man’s  private  house  a 
factory  if  he  employs  a  cook  who  makes  pies  or  biscuits ;  likewise 
a  private  house  could  be  declared  a  factory  if  you  packed  a  trunk 
in  it. 

Hundreds  of  additional  instances,  such  as  the  above,  could  be 
given,  if  space  permitted  it. 


No.  50] 


23 


Some  idea  may  be  gathered  of  the  burden  imposed  upon  owners 
by  the  number  of  orders  issued  by  the  various  departments,  as 


reported  for  the  year  1913  : 

Bureau  of  buildings .  21,950 

Board  of  health  (affecting  real  estate) .  12,700 

Bureau  of  fire  prevention .  45,310 

State  Department  of  Labor .  10,000 

Tenement  house  department .  175,226 


265,186 


Together  with  an  unknown  number  from  the  bureau  of  boiler 
inspection,  department  of  water  supply,  license  bureau  and  bureau 
of  incumbrances.  The  cost  to  comply  with  these  265,186  orders 
has  been  estimated  at  about  $11,500,000. 

Thousands  of  these  orders  were  issued  to  cover  petty  technical 
conditions. 

It  is  the  unanimous  opinion  of  persons  interested  in  real  prop¬ 
erty  that  there  will  be  no  end  to  over-inspection,  needless  inspection 
and  unnecessary  harassing  of  the  property  owner  until  the  juris¬ 
diction  over  the  construction,  alteration  and  structural  changes  in 
buildings  is  given  to  one  bureau,  the  laws  and  regulations  made 
uniform  and  one  interpretation  of  the  law  be  made. 


